國立臺灣大學社會科學院政治學系 碩士論文研究計畫書 （...
139
國立臺灣大學社會科學院政治學系 碩士論文研究計畫書 （口試本） 中央對地方政府補助計畫之可評估性衡量 與執行評估 —以城鎮風貌型塑整體計畫為例 研究生：莊麗蘭 指導教授：趙永茂博士、王宏文博士 中華民國 104 年 6 月
Transcript of 國立臺灣大學社會科學院政治學系 碩士論文研究計畫書 （...
-
104 6
-
i
1
.............................................................................................................. 1
.............................................................................................................. 3
6
.......................................................... 6
............................................................................ 26
...................................................................... 33
(102~105 ) .................................................... 36
...................................................................... 41
...................................................................................................................... 51
52
........................................................................ 52
......................................................................................... 56
............................................................................................. 65
.................................................................................................. 78
.......................................................................................................... 84
..................................................................................... 91
........................................................................................................................... 109
111
................................................................................................................... 111
...................................................................................................... 115
...................................................................................................... 117
-
ii
................................................................................................................... 117
119
................................................................................................................... 119
................................................................................................................... 120
122
2-1 . 8
2-2 ..... 18
2-3 ..... 20
2-4 . 32
2-5 102~105 36
2-6 41
2-7 . 47
2-8 .. 48
2-9 102 . 49
3-1 Rhodes 55
3-2 59
3-3 . 77
3-4 . 89
3-5 103
4-1 . 114
-
iii
2-1 .. 10
2-2 11
2-3 () 22
2-4 . 25
2-5 . 31
2-6 35
2-7 . 38
2-8 46
3-1 . 58
3-2 Basic Logic Model.. 73
3-3 (The Transparent Box Paradigm) 87
4-1 116
5-1 119
-
1
80 87
300 88 50 88 89
1 47
90 4
(90 101 )
(2012) 90 99
149 8,131 (
92 574 97 191 ) 4,086
90 100 4,563 172 9,410
1 7 6 1 12 88 89
-
2
2015
1999 400
; 400
88
(98 101 )102
(102~105)
-
3
() (
)
-
4
(Evaluability Assessment, EA)
()
15
(102~105)
(19982004) (
200420062007) (1998
-
5
200120042011) (2004)
(2006) (2005) (
20062008) (2007) (
2009) (2011) (2011)
(20062011) (2003
2005) (2007) (20082006);
1998 (1998)
1
2
(3) (evaluability assessment, EA)
(Implementation evaluation)(4)
(5)
-
6
(102-105)
() 2000
1.
1998 12 1999 1 25
()
()
-
7
()
2.
(2003:310) 2000
90
2-1.
-
8
2-1.
%
(1)=(2)+(3)
(2)
(2)/(1)
(3) (3)/(1)
89 1,634 393 24.1% 393 - 1,241 75.9% 1,241 -
90 1,965 965 49.1% 965 - 1,000 50.9% 1,000 -
91 1,957 1,055 53.9% 1,055 - 902 46.1% 899 3
92 1,921 1,223 63.7% 1,223 - 698 36.3% 680 18
93 2,335 1,386 59.6% 1,386 - 939 40.4% 551 388
94 2,535 1,398 55.1% 1,398 - 1,137 44.9% 592 545
95 2,362 1,418 60.0% 1,418 - 944 40.0% 509 435
96 2,377 1,411 59.4% 1,411 - 966 40.6% 509 457
97 3,332 1,569 47.1% 1,314 255 1,763 52.9% 776 987
98 3,682 1,880 51.1% 1,325 555 1,802 48.9% 1,180 622
99 3,574 1,920 53.7% 1,345 575 1,654 46.3% 816 838
100 3,705 2,426 65.5% 1,906 520 1,279 34.5% 703 576
101 3,528 2,178 61.7% 1,674 504 1,350 38.3% 1,217 133
102 3,026 1,842 60.9% 1,449 393 1,184 39.1% 1,152 32
103 3,111 1,842 59.2% 1,435 407 1,269 40.8% 1,258 11
(2011) 89~102 103
101
-
9
1999 9 14 ()
1.
2-2.
-
10
2-1.
69 (88.01)
39
()
()
147
()
(92.8)
(94.4)
(99.10102.7)
()
(98.1191.195.1
99.12) ()
()
(89.991.1102.9)
-
11
(
)
()
(
)
2-2.
-
12
3.
2001
89 1,241 90 1,000
91 899 92 680 93 551 94 592
95 509 96 966 97 776 98
1,180 99 816 100 719
92 3
( 1.
)
500 1,000
93
-
13
()
1.
(1)
()
(2)
2001
-
14
94
3
2006 7
(20062008)
()
8
98
-
15
()(
) ()
2.
(1)
()()
-
16
;
;
()
()
(2012)
89 9
() 92 ()
-
17
()
()
-
18
2-2.
1 2 3 4 5
- 78 84 86 90
- 88 92 94 98
- 85 89 91 95
- 73 82 84 88
- 35 48 52 65
- 78 84 86 90
- 77 80 82 86
- 70 78 82 90
- 65 69 71 75
50 78 84 86 90
50 78 84 86 90
- 50 - - -
-
19
- 73 82 84 88
- 85 89 91 95
- 85 89 91 95
-
20
2-3.
1 2 3 4 5
-
-
-
-
-
-
(2)
() 89
91 12
-
21
95 1
99 8
101 12
()()
3. ()
-
22
(2013)
2-3. ()
89.09
--
--
--
91.12
--
--
--
101.12
--
-- 101 7
--
--
--
-- ()
()
95.01
--
--
--
-- 10
99.08
--
--
--
--
90% 3 5 3
--
-- 10
102.09
-
23
(3)
()
92
-
24
(2003)
()
(1)
2
(2) 3
(3)
4
() 15
2
2012 12 ()
()
3
4
-
25
3
5
()
2001
()6
5
5
()
1.
2.
2-4.
-
26
1969
() 19696
1999
1971
1979
1973
Program Evaluation and Review
-
27
Thechnique, PERTManagement by Objectives, MBO
1.
19699181136
2.
3.
1979
4.
-
28
19699
19806
()
1.
7200920149
7 2001
(individual)
-
29
2.
112
2
(1)
(2) (3) (4) (5)
(3) 1979
SWOTPDCA5W
3.
-
30
1973
2001
-
31
2-5.
()
-
- (
)
- (
)
---
( 10
)
(
2~5 )
()
(103.)
()
12314
-
32
4.
1980
(1984)
(1989) (1990)
(1992) (2010)
2000
1999
24-52014
2-4.
2000
2002
2003
2005
2008
2009
2009
2009
2011
2012
2012
2012
2013
2013
-
33
70
880
10.
85
1998
98
90 (90-93)
91 2008
94
(94-97)98 (98 101) 98
8 76 77
-
34
101 12
(102-105)
-
35
87
85
88
90 (90~93) 100
98 4 98101
94 4 94~97
21
70
83 83 10
102 4 102105 126 *
10 21
(* 70 )
2-6.
(2007)
92 2008-
(
)
91
101
-
36
102~105
(102-105 )
(102-105 ) 126 9
(
)
() 70
;
() ;
() 56
2-5. 102~105
70
()
() (
)
9 70
126
-
37
(2014)
102~105
70 102 14.05 103 15
104 25 105 15.95 103 8
103 12
()
102~105 90
101 102 3
-
38
2-7.
-
39
(102~105 )
;
; ;
1.
-
40
2.
3.
4.
Local Agenda 21
(
)
1. 4 60 4
12%
2. 4 5,000
3.
-
41
2.5
2-6.
1. ()
60 4
12%100
3.22 4
3.62
2 . 4
1
3.
5
4. 256
5. 30
6. 192
7. 4 8
1.
4 60
4
12%
2.
4 5,000
3.
2.5
GPMnet 2.0
()
103 2
-
42
103 3
103 -
1
()
1.
()
2.
3.
-
43
1.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
2.
1
-
44
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 10
()
()
()
1.
2.
1
-
45
2
3
1
2
3
50
302015104
-
46
2-8.
()
/
/
10 21
-- -- --
-- --
-
47
2-7.
102
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
103
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
104
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
105
1.
2.
3.
4.
GPMnet2.0 (
)
-
48
1028
10236
1.4
1043
2- 8. 102
3 3 2
1 1 0
0 2 2
1 1 2
1 2 0
1 2 1
2 3
1 5
-
49
2-9. 102
1
2
3
4
5
6 -
7 102
8 -
9
10
11
12 -
13
14
15
---/
16
17
18
19
20 -
21 -
22
-
50
23
()
24 -
()
25
26
27 -
28 -
29
30
31
32 197
33 -
34
35
36
36
-
51
10
10
-
52
() Intergovernmnetal relations, IGR
Diel S. Wright (Understanding
Intergovernmental Relations)
(2001)
2001
-
53
(200547-56) 4
() (policy networks theory)
Klijn (1996) (arrangements)
(interdependemcies)
(interdependency)
(Hanf and Scharpf, 1977)
(Klijn, 1997)
(OToole, 1997a:45-52;
2004)
(Hall & OToole, 2004:186-207)
achhaus, 2008: 30Network
-
54
Toole1997:452008:50
2010:452000:722010: 41
;
Policy Network
Kickert et al., 1997:62010:41
(1999)
(resource mobilization) (2005:14)
R. A. W. Rhodes Policy Network
(policy community) (professional networks)
(intergovernmental networks) (producer networks)
(issue networks) (2014)
-
55
3-1 Rhodes
Marsh & Rhodes, 1992: 14 2010
()
(2009p.1472007p.105-108
2014)
(actors)
-
56
(
)
()
80
()
-
57
Citizen Participation Civic
EngagementThomas Ehrlich (2000) (civic engagement)
(2013)Denhardt Debhardt
(2003) 1.
2.3.
(2013)
Sherry Arnstein 1969
(The ladder of citizen participation)
Ansteiny 1977
()()
()
-
58
Arnstein 30
2003 Bruns (2003) Arnstein
(An extended ladder of participation)
(inform)
(consult) (involve) (collaborate) (partner) (delegate
authority) (establish autonomy) (advise) (enable)
3-1
Arnstein R., 1969
-
59
3-2
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
2012 Burns2003
()
-
60
(identity) Kevin Andrew Lynch 1960
(The Image of City)
(path) (edges) (districts)
(landmarks)
Lynch
(Lynch, 1960:8)
(2007)Norberg-Schulz (1979)
(
2002)identity
(identification)
identity
(Lalli, 19922011)
()
-
61
2012
(Council of Europe ) 2000 (European Landscape
Convention )
(2012)
1996
(Charter of the New Urbanism, CNU)
2000
-
62
1.
;2.
; 3.;4.
(2012)
(2012) 2014 3 21
()
1992 6
Uited Nations Conference on Environment and Development
183 70 102
-
63
21 Local Agenda 21 3
The Climate Change Convention
he Convention on Biological Diversity
153
2009United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development, UNCED
2002
Johannesburg Summit World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002
191
21,340
1972 1992
()
-
64
Across boundary governance
blurred
cross-cutting
(collaboration)community involvement
public-private partnership (compact)
wicked problemregion governance
strategic community
2005p3
R. A. W. Rhodes network
power dependencePierre,
2000:60; 1999:68-69Rhodes Gerry Stoker
2005 (
)
(2009:1472007:105-108) (2014)
(actors)
-
65
(Spicker, 20082014)
(1993)
Newcomer (2010)
fiscal conservatives
performance auditsvalue-for-money audits 1993
-
66
The Government Performance and Result Acts of 1993
1990 The Chief Financial Officers of 1990
systematic measurement of performance
results of operations
Wholey, J. S., et al., 2010, Preface p.xvii;
Newcomer, 2010:5
()
()
/
(evaluation)
(1881) Posavac Garey2007
( Program) program
evaluation
(1885)
-
67
wholey, 2014:2
Wholey 2010Handbook of practiceal program evaluation ()
/program
Newcomer,
Hatry, Wholey et al., 2010:5
;
Newcomer, Hatry, Wholey et al., 2010:5
PDCA / 1950
(W. Ewards Deming)
60
(Plan) (Do) (Check) (Action) PDCA
Posavac Carey (2007)
-
68
(Wholey, et al. 2004:2)
(evaluation capacity)
1.
(program theory)
(Chen, 1990)
(program logical model) (program model) (impact
theory) (Lipsey, 1993) (service utilization theory) (organization
plan)
()
Wholey
1987:78(Rogers,
-
69
et al., 2000:9)Wholey
(1987:78; Rogers, et al. 2000:9)
Bickman
(Bickman, 1987b:5)Lipsey (1987:7)
(black box)
transformed into
(Lipsey, 1987:7)
Rogers 2000
the program theory
(theory-driven)
conceptualizing empirical
intended or observed
a causal chainRogers, 2000:7
(black box
evaluation) (external validity)
-
70
Lipsery Pollard (1989)
Pawson and Tilley, 1995; Patton, 1996; see also
Funnell, Chapter Nineogers, et al. 2000:7
1.
; 2. ; 3. ; 4.
(Davidson, 2000)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
-
71
2.
program
logic model
1970 Carol Weiss (1995) Michael Fullan
Huey Chen (2005)Knowlton, Phillips, 20:4 the
United Way of American 1996 Measuring Program Outcomes
The W. K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model Development
Guide (2001)
holey, et al., 2004:14
(Wholey, et al., 2004:2)
conceptualizing
(Wholey, et al., 2004:2)
Knowlton & Phillips,
-
72
2012:4bounded
(road map)
(Bickman, 1987; holey et al., 2010:56)
Wholey, 1987;
holey et al., 2010:56
(logic model)
Bickman, 1987; Wholey et al., 2010:56
(intermediate
outcomes) (end outcomes) (short-term and longer-term
results)
(cause-and-
effect linkages)
Wholey, J.S., Hatry, H. P., &
Newcomer, K. E., 2014:28
1. ; 2.
; 3. ; 4. ; 5.
holey et al., 2004:14; Wholey et al., 2010:56
-
73
()
(
)
(
)
3-2 (Basic Logic Model)
(context)
(External influences and Related Program)
( mediating factors)
McLaughlin & Jordan, 2010:57
-
74
(process evaluation)
(Impact evaluation) (David Nachmias, 1979)
(evaluation of need) (Evaluation of Process)
(Evaluation of outcome) (evaluation of
efficiency) (Posavac & Carey, 2007) Peter H. Rossi
(Research for program planning)
(Program monitoring) (Impact assessment)
(Research on project efficiency) Rossi (Comprehensive evaluation)
(Peter H. Rossi, et al, 19791993)Rossi
1. (ex-ante)
()
2.
-
75
11
3. (aex-post) (output) (outcome)
(performance evaluation)
(formative
evaluation)process evaluation (descriptive evaluation)
performance monitoringimplementation analysis,
Love, 2004, 2004:67
11 2001
1,300 1,500
-
76
Scriven(1991)Owen and
Rogers(1999)RossiFreemanLipsey (1998)
Wholey 1970 (Evaluability Assessment EA)
holey20102014
process evaluation
(An
assessment that compares actual with intended inputs, activities, and outputsWholey, J.S.,
Hatry, H. P., & Newcomer, K. E., 2014:29
Rossi
(Rossi, Lipsey & Freeman, 2004; Saunders, Evans & Joshi, 2005)
(Saunders et al., 2005)
http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/publications/categories/guides/assets/cjef-evaluating-process-
-
77
and-implementation.pdf
implementation evaluation
Wholey, J.S., Hatry, H. P., &
Newcomer, K. E., 2014:28 deviate
?
Patton,
2001. Website
3-3
implementation evaluation (process evaluation)
1.
deviate
2.
3.
?
1.
2.
3.
-
78
(Evaluability Assessment EA)
Wholey J. S. (1979)
2007
(early assessment project)
-
79
Wholey1979
pre-evaluation already in
placea cost-effective strategy
eventually
outcome evaluation
readiness(Travisan, et al., 2003)
EA
Wholey EA 25 2014 Trevisan Tarama
Evaluability Assessment: Improvement Quality and Use
(enhanced collaboration
and communication) (process and findings use)
(organizational learning) (evaluation capacity building)
Trevisan & Tamara, 2014. Preface
Evaluability Assessment: Improvement Quality and Use 1.
; 2.
; 3.
-
80
Trevisan & Tamara, 2014. Preface; 4.
(program theory)
-
81
(Wholey, et al., 2004, p.33-34)
1.
2.
3.
4.
(evaluable) (Wholey, et
al., 2004:34)
1.
2. plausible
3.
4.
Russ-Eft1986:40
1.
2.
3.
4.
Schmidt (Schmidt, Scanlon,
Bell, 1979 Russ-Eft, 1986:40)
-
82
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
()
Wholey holey, 2004:36
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Wholey Evaluation: Promise and Performance
8 (Whole, 1979)
1.
2.
3.
4.
-
83
5.
6.
7.
8.
Smith (1989) 10
10
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Smith 10
Smith
-
84
(evaluability assessment)
( Implementation evaluation)
manta
nnold Love 1990
(evidence-based)
-
85
data-driven
performance-oriented
Love, 2004 in Wholey, et al., 2004,
p.64
ordinary excellence
Bickman and Heflinger, 1995; Love, 2004:65 Love
black box paradigm
technology
service dosage
transparent box paradigm
-
86
ecological system
8
-
87
3-3 (The Transparent Box Paradigm)
Arnold Loye, 2004:66)
-
88
(Implementation evaluation)1.
2. 3.
4. 5.
service utilization
()program organization
(coverage)
(bias)
(overcoverage) (undercoverage)
delivery system
accessibility
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
-
89
7.
8.
9.
two-step approach Berk
& Rossi, 1999; Love, 2004:67
3-4
-
90
implementation setting
?
-
91
Love, 2004:68-69.
1. components
2.
3. //
4.
5. /
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
-
92
1998
-
93
(2004)
1999~2003
(2006)
(2009)
-
94
(2011)
(2014)
-
95
2006
(2006)
2001-2005
-
96
(2007)
(2009)
-
97
(1998)
1.
2.
3.
4.
(2001)
2003
Analytic
Hierarchy Process, AHPfierarchical Additive
Weighting Method, FHAWrank reversal
probabilitiesranking stability
-
98
(2004)
Local
RevitalizationIdentityCitizen Participation
1
2
1
23
12
3
(2005)
(PCM)
-
99
2006
-
100
(2006)
19982005
NPO
(2006)
9294
2007
95
-
101
95
(2008)
2011
Actor
Network Theory, ANT
empowerment theory
-
102
20111999-2009
environmental imagegenius loci
2003
2008
5(
)
27
-
103
3-5
/
1998
(2004)
(2005)
(2009)
(2011)
(2014)
2006
-
104
(2006)
(2007)
(2009)
(1998)
1.
2.
3.
4.
(2001)
2003
-
105
(2004)
(2005)
2006
(2006)
-
106
NPO
(2006)
2007
(2008)
2011
-
107
20111999-2009
genius loci
2008
;
1.
2.
3.
;
4.
5.
-
108
2007
102-105
evaluability assessment
-
109
(1985)
(102-105 )
-
110
-
111
(Literature Analysis)
1.
; 2. ; 3.
; 4.
; ;
; ;
87
93
( Government Project Management Network GPMnet)
100 GPMnet 2.0
-
112
1.
2.
Schmidt
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7.
1. 2. 3.
-
113
4.
5.
1.
?
(undercover) ?
2.
3.
?
?
?
??
4.
?
?
5.
?
6. ()
7. :
? ?
?
8.
-
114
?
9.
10.
11.
?
4-1
/
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. ()
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
-
115
1
;2
; (3)(4)
NGO
;; (5)
4-1
-
116
4-1
-
117
103 12
22
(103
)
-
118
-
119
5-1
5-1
-
120
; ;
(102-105 )
;
;
; ;
;
; ;
-
121
(102-105 )
-
122
103 103
2014
2006
2010 (TIF) ~
9(4) : 2-21
2011
(2013/5~2012/4)
1999 VS
117/11844-46
2013.02.07
http://www.cpami.gov.tw/
2004
2004
2008
200898-101
http://trp.cpami.gov.tw/ch/NodeTree.aspx?path=71
2001 3-46
2009:
28 39-83
-
123
2014 ( 93 2 3 )
1979
2003
200996~97
2000.3.9
2012()
2000
19444-46
2008.03
6279-13
2001
2003
2003
34044-46
2004
5(2):340132-148
2005
4069-97
1999
117/11834-36
-
124
2003
2004
2006
1993()
43-51
1985
2011
2003
2005
29(2)50-60
2001
2008
200113739-
45
2011
1885
17-59
-
125
200244/4517-
24
2012
2014-
2009
2012.12
191-226
2001
1885
61-77
1993
159-167
2008
19984138-43
20111911-2009
2013.12.09
1999117/118
37-36
2007
-
126
1999
117/11830-33
2006 28047-55
2000
3(1)1-20
2013() 687
46-49
2010
2006
2007
2010
2009
2006
-
127
2009
20052005
2007
3http://trp.cpami.gov.tw/ch/
2014 9 6
2012( )--
http://trp.cpami.gov.tw/ch/AllInOne_Show.aspx?path=175&guid=d5b00329-c344-
4744-9e91-b6481ea4c61b&lang=zh-tw2014.02.17download
2001
2001
2012
2005
1983
1999
2006
2001
http://trp.cpami.gov.tw/ch/AllInOne_Show.aspx?path=175&guid=d5b00329-c344-4744-9e91-b6481ea4c61b&lang=zh-twhttp://trp.cpami.gov.tw/ch/AllInOne_Show.aspx?path=175&guid=d5b00329-c344-4744-9e91-b6481ea4c61b&lang=zh-tw
-
128
2001 293-
314
2014.03
2(1): 24-32
2005
2001
2000
2008
2005
1999
2001
2006
2007Carey, Raymond and Emil
Posavac. Program Evaluation: Methods and Case Studies
2000.04.23 :
-
129
2002
2012.03
94 98 42 1-31
2012.03
http://www.tycg.gov.tw/files/ (2013.11.24 download)
2006
Bingham, Richard & Claire L. Felbinger. 2002. Evaluation in Practice: A Methodological
Approach. Seven Bridges Press, New York: 2002.
Chen, H. T., 1990. Theory-Driven Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1990.
Darlene Russ-Eft, 1986.Evaluability Assessment of the Adult Education Program (AEP):
The Results and Their Use. Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 9:39-47.
Dobson, D., & Cook, T. J. 1980. Avoiding type III error in program evaluation: Results
from a field experiment. Evaluation and Program Planning 3: 269-276.
Domitrovich, C. E., & Greenberg, M. T., 2000. The study of implementation: Current
findings from effective programs that prevent mental disorders in school-aged children.
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 2000, 11(2): 193-221.
Durlak, J. A., 1998.Why program implementation is important. Journal of Prevention
and Intervention in the Community, 17(2): 5-18.
http://www.tycg.gov.tw/files/%20(2013.11.24
-
130
Finn-Aage Esbebsen, et al., 2011. Multimethod Strategy for Assessing Program Fidelity:
The National Evaluation of the Revised G.R.E.A.T. Program.In Evaluation Review,
35(1): 14-39.
Funnell, S., 1997. Program Logic: An Adaptable Tool. Evaluation News and
Comment, 1997, 6(1): 5-17.
Funnell, S., and Mograby, A.,1995. EvaluatingEmployment Programs Delivered by
Commu- nity Organisations. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the
Australasian Evalua- tion Society, 1995,2: 531- 552.
Gerald F. Davis, J. Adam Cobb, 2009. Resource Dependence Theory: Past and Future,
To appear in Research in the Sociology of Organizations.
Hatry, H., van Houten, T., Plantz, M. C., and Greenway, M. T., 1996. Measuring Program
Out- comes: A Practical Approach. Alexandria, Va.: United Way of America, 1996.
Heinz, L. C. and Grant, P. R. 2003. A Process Evaluation of a Parenting Group for Parents
with Intellectual Disability. Evaluation and Program Planning, 26: 263-274.
Frechtling, J. 2007. Logic Modeling Methods in Program Evaluation.San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass. Mayeske, G. W. & Lambur, M. T. 2001. In How to Design Better
Programs: A Staff-Centered Stakeholder Approach to Program Logic Modeling.
Forrester, John P. and Adams, Guy B., 1997.Budgetary Reform Through Organizational
Learning: Toward an Organizational Theory of Budgeting. Administration and
Society: 1997 Vol.28, No.4: 466-488
Knowlton, L. Wyatt. & Phillips, Cynthia. C., 2012.The Logic Model Guidebook: Better
Strategies for Great Results, 2nd ed. Sage.
Langbein, Laura and Felbinger, Claire L. 2006. Public Program Evaluation--A Statistical
Guide. M. E. Sharpe, London: 2006.
-
131
Lenne, B., and Cleland, H., 1987.Describing Program Logic. Program Evaluation
Bulletin. 1987, no. 2. Public Service Board of New South Wales, 1987. pp.55-80.
Liling Huang, 2014. The Uneasy Partnership and Contested Meanings of Urban Form
Examing the Policies of Urban Regeneration in Bankah, Taipei. In Globalization
and New Intra-urban Dynamics in Asian Cities.
Liling Huang, 2008.12. Against the Monster of Privatisation the Qing-tien
Coummunitys Actions for Urban Livability in Taipei.International Development
Planning Review. 2008, Vol. 30: 293-306.
Liling Huang, Jinnyuh Hsu, 2011.06. From Cultural Building, Economic Revitalization
to Local Partnership? The Changing nature of community mobilization in Taiwan.,
International Planning Studies, 2011, Vol. 16. No. 2.
Lipsey, M. W., 1993,Theory as Method: Small Theories of Treatments.In L. Sechrest
and A. Scott (eds.), Understanding Causes and Generalizing About Them. New
Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 57. San Francisco: JosseyBass, 1993.
Lipsey, M. W., & Pollard, J., 1989. Driving Toward Theory in Program Evalualion:
More Models to Choose From.In Evaluation and Program Planning, 1989, 12, 317-
328.
McCann, A., Peterson, J., & Gold, A. J., 2009.Using Planning and Evaluation Tools to
Target Extension Outputs & Outcomes: The New England private well symposium
example. In Journal of Extension [On-line], 47(3) Article 3TOT4. Available at:
http://www.joe.org/joe/2009june/tt4.php
McDavid, James C., Huse, & Hawthom, Laura R. L. 2013. Program Evaluation and
Performance Measurement: An Introduction to Practice, 2nd Sage:
http://www.joe.org/joe/2009june/tt4.phphttp://www.amazon.com/James-C.-McDavid/e/B001K8UED4/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_2?ie=UTF8&field-author=Irene+Huse&search-alias=books&text=Irene+Huse&sort=relevancerankhttp://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_2?ie=UTF8&field-author=Irene+Huse&search-alias=books&text=Irene+Huse&sort=relevancerankhttp://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_3?ie=UTF8&field-author=Laura+R.+L.+Hawthorn&search-alias=books&text=Laura+R.+L.+Hawthorn&sort=relevancerank
-
132
McLaughlin, John A. Jordan & Gretchen B. 2010. Using Logic Models, In The
Handbook of Practical Program evaluation, eds. Wholey, J. S., Hatry, H. P., &
Newcomer, K. E. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass, 55-80.
OToole, Laurance, 1997. Treating Network Serieasly: Practice and Research-based
Adgenda in Public Administration.In Public Administrarion Review. 57(1): 45-52.
Patton, M. (2001). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Patton, M. 2001. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications. Website http://meera.snre.umich.edu/links-
resources/meera-evaluation-glossary/implementation-evaluation.
Rogers, Anthony Petrosino, Tracy A. Huebvers, Timothy A. Hacsi, 2000.Program Theory
Evaluation: Practice, Promise, and Problems,In New Directions Evaluation, no. 87,
Fall, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, p5-13.
Roucan-Kane, M. 2008. Key facts and key resources for program evaluation. Journal
of Extension [On-line], 46(1) Article 1TOT2. Available at:
http://www.joe.org/joe/2008february/tt2.php
Rossi, Peter, Mark Lipsey, & Howard Freeman. 2004. Evaluation - A Systematic Approach.
Seventh edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
Sanou, Aboubakary, Bocar Kouyate, Gilles Bibeau, & Vinh-Kim Nguyen, 2011.
Evaluability Assessment of an Immunization Improvement Strategy in Rural Burkina
Faso: Intervention Theory Versus Reality, Information Need and Evaluations.In
Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 34: 303-315.
http://www.joe.org/joe/2008february/tt2.php
-
133
Saunders, R. P., Evans, M. H., & Joshi P. 2005.Developing a Process-Evaluation Plan
for Assessing Health Promotion Program Implementation: a How-to Guide.In Health
Promotion Practice, 6(2): 134-147.
Saunders, R. P., Wilcox, S., Baruth, M., & Dowda, M. 2014. Process Evaluation
Methods, Implementation Fidelity Results and Relationship to Physical Activity and
Healthy Eating in the Faith, Activity, and Nutrition. (FAN) Study. In Evaluation
and program planning, 43:93-102.
Scheirer, M. A. 1987. Program theory and implementation theory: Implications for
evaluators. In New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1987(33): 59-76.
Scheirer, Mary Ann, 2010.Designing and Using Process Evaluation,In Handbook of
Practical Program Evaluatin, 3rd ed.
Smith, M. F. 1989. Evaluability Assessment: A Practical Approach. Clemson: Kluwer
Academic
Spicker, P., 2008. Social Policy: Themes and Approaches. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Thurston, Wilfreda E., & Ramaliu, Anila, Calgary, Alberta. 2005, Evaluability
Assessment of a survivors of torture program: Lessons learned. In Candian Journal
of Program Evaluation, 20(2): 1-15.
Trevisan, Michael. 2007. Evaluability Assessment From 1986 to 2006. In American
Journal of Evaluation, 28(3): 290-303.
Trevisan, Michael S. & Walses, Tamara M., 2014. Evaluability Assessment: Improving
Evaluation Quality and Use, Sage Pubns.
Wachhaus T. Aaron, 2008. Networks in Contemporary Public Administration: A
Discourse Analysis. A dissertation in Public Administration.
-
134
Wholey, J. S. 1979. Evaluation: Promise and performance. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute.
Wholey, J. S. 1987. Evaluability assessment: Developing Program Theory, New Directions
for Program Evaluation, 33: 77-92.
Wholey, J. S., Hatry, H. P., & Newcomer, K. E. 1994. The Handbook of Practical Program
Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wholey, J.S., Hatry, H. P., & Newcomer, K. E. 2004. The Handbook of Practical Program
Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wholey, J.S., Hatry, H. P., & Newcomer, K. E. 2014. The Handbook of Practical Program
Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
